so what should we do? let them live in the conditions there in now? leave them to sink under a mountain of authoritian regimes, poor health care and suffocation debt. No we can't govern the world, but thats no excuse for leaving people in a hell hole.
If the situation was reversed, say you lived in Darfur, would you not want the Americans to jump in with both feet. If you'd watch rape and pilage and burning and people being hacked to death.
and if we can't use war, how else would you have stopped a massacre of 800,000 people in Rwanda. So many that the rivers foamed with blood. Do you think asking them nicely to stop would have worked?
After the west let the genocide in Rwanda happen, it said never again, after the slaughter during the holocaust it said never again so how come there aren't any sanctions against Sudan and we aren't in there stopping ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Terrorist groups for years have realised that violence is the only way to get your cause noticed, the IRA, FARC, Eta, Coursican Nationalists, Al Qu'eda well sometimes the same goes for governments too.
It is not right that we sit back and do nothing. But if thats degrading and bringing myself down to their level.
and if it sucks to be British, I'm sure the country that educated you, looks after your health and welfare, keeps you safe lets you speak freely against it won't mind. But imagine if you were an 18 year old soldier in Basra, who had been sent to war in a country so far away in heat and dust, or the family of one of the nine men who died in the line of duty, then how would you feel if you knew people at home were degrading your sacrifice or the sacrifice of your son or brother or father? So yeah, criticise the policy of the government, protest against a leader you disagree with because you've got the chance, but don't ever say it sucks.
Kennedy (I'm almost positive it was him) said ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.
Oh come on, you write very persuasively, in fact I should probably congratulate you on your use of persuasive techniques. But, you cant guilt me out of my belief.
Americans said that they will never give into terrorists, so why are you saying americans are like them by killing , slaughtering to get their way. You say terror and force groups get what they want, well hello Martin Luther King did alot more than the Black Panthers.
Violence is definately not the only way to get your cause noticed, think of the student movement, the woman's movement, civil rights.
I do not condone at all the use of violence and I think america should not fight fire with fire. Don't kill people because they are killing their own people.
They should also definately not go to war without backing from the UN and I stick by that. I also think that it isnt up to Bush to decide all this on his own. Innocents are being killed daily and moreso by their supposed 'rescuers'
Yes, I am british, but under Tony Blair it doesnt mean I respect it. I ahte our government right now, the country is in a state. But i'm proud of our people, if you look at what we gave as a nation to the Tsunami crisis, thats great.
And as for not supporting our soldiers, I am 100% behind them but it does not mean they know what they are going to war for. That they are behind the war. It's blood on Blair's hands, he forced our troops out there, many wrongly equipped and they've given their lives for their country and for liberating another. But I think those lives should have been saved, there shouldn't have been a war. That's why it sucks to be British because our lovely democratic government does not listen to its people when we protest. We get no referendum, we're not listened to when we march the streets of London.
And yes I can say being British sucks, because being British right now means I stand for so much I don't believe in.
Americans said that they will never give into terrorists, so why are you saying americans are like them by killing , slaughtering to get their way. You say terror and force groups get what they want, well hello Martin Luther King did alot more than the Black Panthers.
Violence is definately not the only way to get your cause noticed, think of the student movement, the woman's movement, civil rights.
I do not condone at all the use of violence and I think america should not fight fire with fire. Don't kill people because they are killing their own people.
They should also definately not go to war without backing from the UN and I stick by that. I also think that it isnt up to Bush to decide all this on his own. Innocents are being killed daily and moreso by their supposed 'rescuers'
Yes, I am british, but under Tony Blair it doesnt mean I respect it. I ahte our government right now, the country is in a state. But i'm proud of our people, if you look at what we gave as a nation to the Tsunami crisis, thats great.
And as for not supporting our soldiers, I am 100% behind them but it does not mean they know what they are going to war for. That they are behind the war. It's blood on Blair's hands, he forced our troops out there, many wrongly equipped and they've given their lives for their country and for liberating another. But I think those lives should have been saved, there shouldn't have been a war. That's why it sucks to be British because our lovely democratic government does not listen to its people when we protest. We get no referendum, we're not listened to when we march the streets of London.
And yes I can say being British sucks, because being British right now means I stand for so much I don't believe in.
Yeah, ok there are lots of examples where non-violence has worked Ghandi, even Zimbabwe under Smith and thats great but it doesn't always work. I don't believe in violence for its own sake, nobody does but do you think we would have ever got to the stage we are now in Northern Ireland without the bombing campaign.
And i think the women's movement did use violence, smashing windows, chaining themselves to railings, Emily Davidson threw herself under a a horse in the derby, one of the Suffargets and I think it was one of the Pankhursts attacked Asquith with a golf club. Sure fortitous circumstances meant they got it sooner but without the violence, Millicent Fawcett wouldn't have forced it and we probably still been wating much later for the vote.
Even at Greenham common the protest would turn violent, the women's movement that attacked the planes bound for Burma.
This is again where any totally pacifist logic will fall down. If you take your arguement to its conclusion then we would have not go in to Poland, wouldn't have stopped WWII, Bosnia or Rwanda. Force is necessary. Milosoviech was not going to stop slaughter because we asked nicely and had a sit in.
I agree, Britain is a great country, and we do so much for the rest of the world, even if all the promises to Africa aren't kept (and I think they will) our government together with citizens have raised the profile so much that maybe something will get done.
But you have to remember even if there was a million people on the stop the war march, what about the other 59 million that might be in favour. And I also suppose fox huntings ok, its ok to torture an animal because loads of people protested about that too and we should let the Unionist run N.I how they want and let them treat the Catholics like dirt because they march about that too and lets kick all the ethnic minorities out of Oldham and Burnley and Bradford because the BNP marched about that.
Durkheim said the more advanced a society the number of variations it can manage from a moral code and Britian can. That means it does not stand for one thing. so I cannot understand why it "sucks" Do you think that everyone who flew a st george during the football believed the same thing, or that every american does? No but our common morality, our basic agreement on good and evil as Devlin would have put it binds our country together,
And i think the women's movement did use violence, smashing windows, chaining themselves to railings, Emily Davidson threw herself under a a horse in the derby, one of the Suffargets and I think it was one of the Pankhursts attacked Asquith with a golf club. Sure fortitous circumstances meant they got it sooner but without the violence, Millicent Fawcett wouldn't have forced it and we probably still been wating much later for the vote.
Even at Greenham common the protest would turn violent, the women's movement that attacked the planes bound for Burma.
This is again where any totally pacifist logic will fall down. If you take your arguement to its conclusion then we would have not go in to Poland, wouldn't have stopped WWII, Bosnia or Rwanda. Force is necessary. Milosoviech was not going to stop slaughter because we asked nicely and had a sit in.
I agree, Britain is a great country, and we do so much for the rest of the world, even if all the promises to Africa aren't kept (and I think they will) our government together with citizens have raised the profile so much that maybe something will get done.
But you have to remember even if there was a million people on the stop the war march, what about the other 59 million that might be in favour. And I also suppose fox huntings ok, its ok to torture an animal because loads of people protested about that too and we should let the Unionist run N.I how they want and let them treat the Catholics like dirt because they march about that too and lets kick all the ethnic minorities out of Oldham and Burnley and Bradford because the BNP marched about that.
Durkheim said the more advanced a society the number of variations it can manage from a moral code and Britian can. That means it does not stand for one thing. so I cannot understand why it "sucks" Do you think that everyone who flew a st george during the football believed the same thing, or that every american does? No but our common morality, our basic agreement on good and evil as Devlin would have put it binds our country together,
hmmm okay, violence does some time win, but its not what we should use, we should win by knowing we did what was morally right, we shouldnt win by using fear to put our own ideals into other people.
ans as for the womans movement, yes it used biolence, when people get frustrated they use violence, but after they started using violence popularity for the woman's movement withdrew, it wa sonly after the effort all the suffragetted did in WW1 that the women's movement took off again, they stopped using violence and were listened to!!
i dont condone the use of violence, but it doesnt mean that in some cases i dont believe it isnt essential, i just think that violence for violence's sake is pointless. Plus you need backing and proper reasons, self-defence sure, to benefit george w bush, no way!!
ok then why wasnt there a referndum on the war?? it was plainly because tony lovely blair knew he would lose it, he knew us brisih didnt support him, in the poll done by parliament 72% of british citizens didnt back the war. okay!!
not everything we march in means it should be done, but it shows opinion, the huge diversity of those in the anti-war march should have been listened to, it wasnt a select few.
we all fly our st george's flag for the football because we believe in our team, but it doesnt mean i'm always going to fly my flag becuase usually i dont believe in why i should fly it. I love our people, but i hate what it means to be british on so many levels. It sucks to be british because we're meant to be a democracy and instead with the introduction of ID cards we are turning into 1984
ans as for the womans movement, yes it used biolence, when people get frustrated they use violence, but after they started using violence popularity for the woman's movement withdrew, it wa sonly after the effort all the suffragetted did in WW1 that the women's movement took off again, they stopped using violence and were listened to!!
i dont condone the use of violence, but it doesnt mean that in some cases i dont believe it isnt essential, i just think that violence for violence's sake is pointless. Plus you need backing and proper reasons, self-defence sure, to benefit george w bush, no way!!
ok then why wasnt there a referndum on the war?? it was plainly because tony lovely blair knew he would lose it, he knew us brisih didnt support him, in the poll done by parliament 72% of british citizens didnt back the war. okay!!
not everything we march in means it should be done, but it shows opinion, the huge diversity of those in the anti-war march should have been listened to, it wasnt a select few.
we all fly our st george's flag for the football because we believe in our team, but it doesnt mean i'm always going to fly my flag becuase usually i dont believe in why i should fly it. I love our people, but i hate what it means to be british on so many levels. It sucks to be british because we're meant to be a democracy and instead with the introduction of ID cards we are turning into 1984
QUOTE] violence does some time win,[/QUOTE]
I wanted a bit more than sometimes. ;-)
and that is sometimes violence. In fact on many occasions armed struggle is the only way towards lasting peace. And bringing morals into this is wrong because what I consider moral and what you consider moral are obviously polar opposites. So who's morals are we going to use.
Where are we doing that. If anyone its the insurgents doing that. The idea is democracy so on that level maybe; but inside that framework anything goes; early indications, from what i've seen, is that a religious group is winning the election, something I'm not to sure we would have picked for them but the people will have spoken.
who from? on organisation so corrupt, they're sacking officals left right and centre? When we declared war on Germany, there was no backing, it was essentially unilateral action. There were strong arguements for staying out. We were an Atlanticist power. We had an empire. We could have let Hitler, live in his Nazi SuperEmpire and we could have traded.
And is 300,000 dead Shia, torture, corruption, suppression of minorities and use of chemical weapons on Kurds, Kuwaities and Iranians not enough for you? If so what would you like?
I think that figure is misquoted, I know when we went in, at least, that it was a more even split. And if that is the case, how come Labour is at a "post-Iraq" high? 43% of people voting for them if the election was tomorrow.While the only "anti-war" party's support has dropped.
Populas for the Times. Labour post-Iraq high.
and who ever had a referendum about war??
so just because you all didn't live in the county means your opinion is more valid? The Country Alliance, believe in fox-hunting. It will materially affect some of them when the ban comes into force. They have just as much right to be listened to as any anti-war march. and it was not "a select few" there were a million people there. But the government has still done that so atleast its consistent.
thats a paradox. Because the state does not exisist independent of its people. so the British people make Britain what it is. And if it sucks so do they. You cannot say you love the people you like and everything else sucks. Either it does or it doesn't.
Theres pleanty i don't like about Britain. The racist tendency, the fact we still let people like in squalor, the lack of public service in public service, a dodgy work ethic a sicknote culture.
but whats good about it. Ellen McArthur, Coronation Street. Pomp and Ceremony. (did you see the jubilee) our love of an underdog. makes it so much better.And thats why Britain never "sucks."
I wanted a bit more than sometimes. ;-)
and that is sometimes violence. In fact on many occasions armed struggle is the only way towards lasting peace. And bringing morals into this is wrong because what I consider moral and what you consider moral are obviously polar opposites. So who's morals are we going to use.
Where are we doing that. If anyone its the insurgents doing that. The idea is democracy so on that level maybe; but inside that framework anything goes; early indications, from what i've seen, is that a religious group is winning the election, something I'm not to sure we would have picked for them but the people will have spoken.
who from? on organisation so corrupt, they're sacking officals left right and centre? When we declared war on Germany, there was no backing, it was essentially unilateral action. There were strong arguements for staying out. We were an Atlanticist power. We had an empire. We could have let Hitler, live in his Nazi SuperEmpire and we could have traded.
And is 300,000 dead Shia, torture, corruption, suppression of minorities and use of chemical weapons on Kurds, Kuwaities and Iranians not enough for you? If so what would you like?
I think that figure is misquoted, I know when we went in, at least, that it was a more even split. And if that is the case, how come Labour is at a "post-Iraq" high? 43% of people voting for them if the election was tomorrow.While the only "anti-war" party's support has dropped.
Populas for the Times. Labour post-Iraq high.
and who ever had a referendum about war??
so just because you all didn't live in the county means your opinion is more valid? The Country Alliance, believe in fox-hunting. It will materially affect some of them when the ban comes into force. They have just as much right to be listened to as any anti-war march. and it was not "a select few" there were a million people there. But the government has still done that so atleast its consistent.
thats a paradox. Because the state does not exisist independent of its people. so the British people make Britain what it is. And if it sucks so do they. You cannot say you love the people you like and everything else sucks. Either it does or it doesn't.
Theres pleanty i don't like about Britain. The racist tendency, the fact we still let people like in squalor, the lack of public service in public service, a dodgy work ethic a sicknote culture.
but whats good about it. Ellen McArthur, Coronation Street. Pomp and Ceremony. (did you see the jubilee) our love of an underdog. makes it so much better.And thats why Britain never "sucks."
well you are not going to get it, violence is not the answer, we shouldnt let us behave like terrorists to tget people to listen to us. Violence sickens me. iT IS THE LAST RESORT!
I dont agree with that, n.ireland peace talks etc. In few occasions is it the only way and they are necessary occassions, you shouldnt just use violence because it is easier. Especially in such trivial things like invading Iran. Killing innocents for the sake of it.
We put our ideals into Iraq, if people disagreed with what we wanted for them, they were killed. You can see how they didnt want this, yoyu can see how we terrified the people in Iraq. And in fact there are cases of members of the army forcing them to go vote. This is their country, their life, they should decide, we shouldnt invoke and force what we think is best on them.
From the UN, from the organisation which represents the world. We shouldnt let George Bush dictate what happens to the world. He's the terrorist threatenign innocent lives.
We kinew Hitler wanted to invade us, to take over us, so we did so in self defense, but we also used violence to save many. yOU CANNOT PARRALLEL THAT WITH INVADING iRAN!!
well if that is true, I put it down to a lot of propaganda which gullibles are falling for. WMD? where are they? If Tony Blair manages to keep his seat then I dont know what will come to this world. 1984 I'm guessing :
h34r: #I live in the country, I live where fox-hunting happens, and of course they should be listend to, but in turn, many people resent fox-hunting. The anti-war march however, was widely backed. and I think i was the one who stated that it was not a select few, it was quite a large member of British Society. The government is meant to be the voice of the people, adn i dont see that. They are being independant, dictators if you like.
No it isnt an oxymoron, I can love the people but hate Britain. I hate what we stand for, that doesnt mean I hate the people. Britain is independant , it stands for much which the people do not. and I can say everything else sucks, the government (singuarly separate from being people) the economy, the laws.
and maybe our love of the underdog has made us forget that most people arent and they are the ones now being regretted.
so to be politically correct I'll state, that IN MY OPINION Britain sucks
AJB
Cadet
Without being biased Cinders because we get on well, but I completely agree with your view.
For 'Dubya' to call Iraq/Iran/Syria/Afghanistan/North Korea etc...terrorists when he goes around bombing innocent civilians in order to get oil rights, is one major double standard!.
And yeah, it's not right to say that the people in a country suck just because it's government do. The Labour government is a pile of felgercarb ran by over-paid, under-worked, out of touch sycophants led by that Bush c**k-sucker Tony Blair, but us Brits are alright. A good half of us in the know hate that we're so closely aligned with 'Dubya's' warmongering Hawks.
As for a US attack on Iran, it wouldn't surprise me in the least, but I tell you one thing: don't expect this one to be a walk-in-the-park like invading Iraq was. Iran have far more powerful resources & won't take the US just coming in & bullying them. It will open up a can of worms & increase the fanaticism of those who believe the Western world is corrupt and decadent.
And not to condone how they go about things, on that point I reckon they're bloody well right!...
For 'Dubya' to call Iraq/Iran/Syria/Afghanistan/North Korea etc...terrorists when he goes around bombing innocent civilians in order to get oil rights, is one major double standard!.
And yeah, it's not right to say that the people in a country suck just because it's government do. The Labour government is a pile of felgercarb ran by over-paid, under-worked, out of touch sycophants led by that Bush c**k-sucker Tony Blair, but us Brits are alright. A good half of us in the know hate that we're so closely aligned with 'Dubya's' warmongering Hawks.
As for a US attack on Iran, it wouldn't surprise me in the least, but I tell you one thing: don't expect this one to be a walk-in-the-park like invading Iraq was. Iran have far more powerful resources & won't take the US just coming in & bullying them. It will open up a can of worms & increase the fanaticism of those who believe the Western world is corrupt and decadent.
And not to condone how they go about things, on that point I reckon they're bloody well right!...
not forgetting untrustworthy and paranoid.
Iraq was no walk in the park though, the amount of innocents who dies for a cause they dont believe in is growing. But as for Iran, why shouldnt they be angry with the western world. If they have WMD, why shouldnt they keep them, we have them to use against them!! We're the ones being the terrorists planning to invade them. And how many more people have to die? Will there be a Britian left, or do we have to suffer so much for us to finally realise that violence and war is not the answer?
As for Tony Blair when will he go and take part in the war, be there with all the blood he ahs spilt? But he'll happily send us!
and I totally agree with you AJB
at least some of us are prescient
Do you honestly think we would have got to a peace process without the bombing campaign?
We tried non-violence. Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement, and it didn't work, Battle of Bogside anyone?
I would like to evidence of that because, I have seen no reports like that. What I have seen is people crying because it is the first chance they got to vote in 30 YEARS. Anyone who saw Saleem Pax's report on newsnight will have seen him demonstrate the resistance to voting was in Baghdad and the surrounding areas.
Well don't really know what to say to that. The world is represented by an organisation so corrupt. They've sacked some adminstrators in Iraq only this week. And if it represents the world, then why the hell aren't they doing something in Sudan or Somilia or Togo?
There is evidence that Hitler did not want to invade Britain. That he would have been quite happy to trade with us and have the world run by two super empires. Until we declared war when he invaded Poland.
Well they might not be there now. And thats up to M16 and the intelligence services. But they were there in 1991. and lets ask a Kuwati soldier, or a Kurd or an iranian that he used mustard gas on. I don't know where they are. But I do know he had them.
so was the country alliance march. 1 MILLION people. And these aren't people that are easily riled. They don't protest for nothing. I want to know why it any different.
i think that is an entirely different arguement but how our economy can suck as it is now I don't know. Black Wednesday? Laws that say women and men are equal? Laws that say its wrong to abuse children? Laws that say we can do what we want as long as its not illegal? Laws that say you and I can vote?
For what its worth, I don't think they will invade Iran. The risk is too great. I think Tony Blair is too big a fan of his place in history to risk it on that level.
I agreed with the war in Iraq and still do, but I do think it may have been best served by doing it differently if we'd done it properly in the first gulf war or aided internal upraising then maybe this arguement would be hypothetical. Its not what I would have done. However I don't think sitting back and letting Saddam Hussain kill 300,000 of his people was the right think to do.
How anybody can say that removing a dictator as odious as Saddam Hussain is wrong is just beyound me. All governments aren't equal, I see a government as sovereign when it rules with the democratic consent of its people. Thats fairly won an election, so sure people disagree but atleast it was fair. Hussain never won an election and while they have them in Iran, the Ayatollah's are so much in charge, nothing changes. Thats not democratic consent. We're not talking about invading France or Germany or the Ukraine. We're talking about a country where their Olympic atheletes were beaten and people were shot on sight. No one should live like that.
You complain about Britain turning into 1984. Well you don't know what it would be like to live in a society like that. But people in Iraq do. And you are so vehemently opposed to us carrying ID cards yet you'd let them live like that. And you'd let Iran stay as it is. You say Britain sucks. At least you can say that.
Rightly or Wrongly you criticise the invasion, but if we had not invaded, then Saddam would still be in power. You don't get one without the other. There was no other way to remove Saddam.
I don't care about WMD's. So maybe they made it up or maybe they were duped. I don't care. I care about the fact, they've had elections for the first time in 30 years. I care about the fact people who had relatives disappear might just get the chance to see the person that ordered that brought to justice.
Yeah sucks to be British.
How can you be so patriotic???
its no doubt sardonic, but I think thats the one thing out of this debate I can actually agree with.
If you dont care whether there were WMDs or not , then I'm sorry, because if there were no WMDs then it proves are government lied to us, they stirred up fear, made us think we were going to be attacked. They led some to support a war. Our democratic government lied to us!!! That says enough to me.
Yes, Sadaam is an appalling man, but you cant go and just invade a country, you should as I must ahve already stated 5 times already , have backing, support, and why not start with kim jong il or someone worse??? WHy Sadaam!!! Why now!!! Why kill millions of innocents.
plus America spend $180 million in Iraq every week keeping order, that money , didnt need to have been wasted. That money could have gone to aid the poverty killing a child every 3 seconds in Africa.
It may be corny but I stand by the fact that 'two wrongs dont make a right'
We're not here to determine the world, dictate the world, kill half the world!!! We're here to be the bigger people and being the bigger people means not degrading ourselves to their level. If they are carrying ID cards, does that mean we should? I'm not saying we shuld leave them like that, but Britain and america ALONE SHOULD NOT KILL INNOCENTS, BECOME THE COUNTRIES THEY SAY THEY ARE FIGHTING and DESTROY ALL THOSE WHO DONT FOLLOW THEM.
Why are people's relatives disappearing, because our lovely government is sending them out there.
Yes we're not the worst country in the world, but it doesnt mean we dont suck. And I tell you what will confirm this thought, our invasion of Iran no doubtedly coming next year
its no doubt sardonic, but I think thats the one thing out of this debate I can actually agree with.
If you dont care whether there were WMDs or not , then I'm sorry, because if there were no WMDs then it proves are government lied to us, they stirred up fear, made us think we were going to be attacked. They led some to support a war. Our democratic government lied to us!!! That says enough to me.
Yes, Sadaam is an appalling man, but you cant go and just invade a country, you should as I must ahve already stated 5 times already , have backing, support, and why not start with kim jong il or someone worse??? WHy Sadaam!!! Why now!!! Why kill millions of innocents.
plus America spend $180 million in Iraq every week keeping order, that money , didnt need to have been wasted. That money could have gone to aid the poverty killing a child every 3 seconds in Africa.
It may be corny but I stand by the fact that 'two wrongs dont make a right'
We're not here to determine the world, dictate the world, kill half the world!!! We're here to be the bigger people and being the bigger people means not degrading ourselves to their level. If they are carrying ID cards, does that mean we should? I'm not saying we shuld leave them like that, but Britain and america ALONE SHOULD NOT KILL INNOCENTS, BECOME THE COUNTRIES THEY SAY THEY ARE FIGHTING and DESTROY ALL THOSE WHO DONT FOLLOW THEM.
Why are people's relatives disappearing, because our lovely government is sending them out there.
Yes we're not the worst country in the world, but it doesnt mean we dont suck. And I tell you what will confirm this thought, our invasion of Iran no doubtedly coming next year
Anyone that doesn't know what its like to be patrotic, that can not imagine an affection for their countries ideals, should stand at Twickerham. And when you watch 70, 000 people sing Jeruslum. You will feel what I felt. And as corny as it sounds, you stop wishing your country was like this or like that, you realise its not brilliant but its ok.
I'm so greatful for the oppotunties that I have had. And that has all come from the state system. Your education, healthcare. Sure there a bit shaky but imagine living in a country with none of those things. Where rule of law is actucally rule of gun. and that should be enough.
There are loads of things that I don't like about Blair, I would never ever vote Labour. I don't like the idea of a smoking ban or the fact he is strangling university's by threatning them with the Access Office. There are some things that have made me so mad, I'd protest and I'm not saying we should all have a love in with Blair cos he's so great. A real patriot will oppose government and I do. But he has had courage of his convictions. They've done things that are unpopular, and I respect that.
I don't think the lies were intentional. As I've said they were there. He used them. So I don't know what went wrong their. And governments do lie, Thatcher's government lied when they told us they wouldn't talk to terrorists and then had negogaitions with the IRA.
do you know something, I would, then I'd invade Somilia, Togo, bits of Russia, Burma Zimbabwe.
My patriotism is not blind, I see the the faults. A lot of problems in the world still stem form British partition, Kashmir for example so we have a responsibility to help.
mexico city
Cadet
in the end
why are we threatening them?
what the hell will we do if they develop nukes?
we didn't do anything to north korea...
mc
why are we threatening them?
what the hell will we do if they develop nukes?
we didn't do anything to north korea...
mc
Because, despite the fact you all seem to think that George Bush is a homocidal manic, it is not likely, he will launch nuclear weapons without some provocation.
Kim Il Jong on the other hand, believe he is a demigod and possibly will.
The world would be much safer if nobody had them. Point is if random, mad regiems are then we have to too.
Logistically, it would be hard to invade Korea, except from the South, and the fact the Americans have already reduced troop numbers there quite recently suggests this won't happen. Korea are just having a tant. China know its dangerous having them there and won't let their own progress be jepodised. The negogiations will start soon.
Kim Il Jong on the other hand, believe he is a demigod and possibly will.
The world would be much safer if nobody had them. Point is if random, mad regiems are then we have to too.
Logistically, it would be hard to invade Korea, except from the South, and the fact the Americans have already reduced troop numbers there quite recently suggests this won't happen. Korea are just having a tant. China know its dangerous having them there and won't let their own progress be jepodised. The negogiations will start soon.
AliasHombre
Cadet
We're talking to NK in six nation talks. Thats why we aren't invading.
PleaseDrinkMilk
Cadet
I've read through the past page or two in this thread...all I gotta say is, noggi16 is my idol.
